20 years later we lose Princess Diana on August 31,1997

Started by sara8150, August 16, 2017, 04:55:07 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

sara8150

Princess Diana: Remembering Her 20 Years After Her Death
Princess Diana: Remembering Her 20 Years After Her Death - Us Weekly

We have to respect to people's princess and queen's hearts Princess Diana who died on August 31,1997 at 36 years old if she would alive today she will be 56 years old between London and Paris to respect Diana's memory.. SO please no negative talk on Princess Diana's or i will informed to Administer or moderator please respect to her sons Duke of Cambridge and Prince Harry on lose mom's death..



Double post auto-merged: August 16, 2017, 04:58:36 PM


https://postimg.org/image/jak0y5873/

Curryong

An interesting article on the recent media coverage and on how Diana's impact changed the royal family.

The 'Princess Diana story': why everyone has their own version

Duch_Luver_4ever

Minute-by-minute series of the week Diana died | Daily Mail Online

Im of two minds on posting it, its very tough to read at parts, especially Dianas condition at the scene, and of course this part made me ever so cross....

Prince Charles is on the phone to his spokesman, Mark Bolland, in London. He wants to know the latest news on Diana's condition. 'I always thought that Diana would come back to me, needing to be cared for,' the Prince says.

He had 16 years to care for her, now it was too bloody late!! What was he thinking, was it guilt?

Here was someone who has demonstrated over decades hes incapable of caring for anyone but himself, and finally, after it all...call me sir, whatever in love means, theyre only cheering because its me, all she ever did was say yes to me, i wish i had two wives, is that going to reappear later, more shopping?, oh god its a boy, you look ridiculous, etc. etc. etc....now he finally gets it????

I want to believe for the boys sake and for Dianas ideals about loving him that there was some shred of humanity in there, but his behaviour after the fact belies it. I think he may have thought that because it would make him look good and rehabilitate his image, being the dutiful nurse to injured Diana, and how dare she have the temerity to go and die on him!

Hopefully for one clip of a second, he finally realized how wonderful it could be to care for her, he let so much time and opportunity slip through his fingers, not only missing out of that wonderful experience, but so typical of him, even though he didnt want to, he would make it almost impossible for anyone else to do it either. A much grander version of those three minute eggs they have to make and throw out and remake if hes not back from the hunt when hes at Balmoral.

Being given everything with no merit made him immune to the value of things big or small, he didnt see the value of that sweet girls heart....until it stopped beating. People wonder why people dont like him, thats why!!!

"No other member of the Royal Family mattered that year, or I think for the next 17 years, it was just her." Arthur Edwards, The Sun Photographer, talking about Diana's impact.

royalanthropologist

You would have to be made of stone not to feel a tinge of regret for someone who was once married to you and with whom you produced two children dying in such a violent and unexpected way. That does not mean that the married could have worked. It was a doomed arrangement. No matter how much people may have loved Diana and wanted Charles to love her the same: he didn't. You can't force these things. The heart wants what the heart wants. In the end, they couldn't even live together for appearances' sake. It was a bad relationship whose only source of mutual happiness were the children that resulted from it.
"In the past, people were born royal. Nowadays, royalty comes from what you do"...Gianni Versace

amabel


Curryong

'The heart wants what the heart wants', indeed. It's a shame that the emotionally obtuse Charles didn't take that particular maxim on board in 1980, and saved everyone, including his first wife, a lot of heartbreak.

amabel

but he didn't.  He tired to Love Diana, but he found her hard to understand when they got married and she seemed very different to what she had been like when they were courting.  What's the point of saying over and a gain that he SHOULD have fallen in love with her, or that he shoudlnt' have married her?
They were botht at fault.. but they were both victims of the particular situation that the RF was in at the time.
The RF were worreied about left wing governments, still worrying and bothered by the Abdication in 1936... and afraid that if they didn't show up as Good hardworking happily married and respecitable, they would lose their throne.
Diana was traumatised by her unhappy family background and she sought the security of a marriage that was both splendid in social terms and also in terms she hoped of being loving and "could not end in divorce."  So she eagerly sought the marriage to Charles, and fooled herself into believing that she could fit In, that being the wife of the POW was what she wanted most in the world and she would be perfectly happy with the man, and the lifestyle, without realsing that it was not going to be easy.

tiaras


Curryong

#8
Quote from: amabel on August 19, 2017, 07:22:30 AM
OH Charles is a big monster who eats babies.....

While Diana is regarded by some here as the equivalent of the mad Mrs Rochester and a woman who planned the demise of the House of Windsor.

Double post auto-merged: August 19, 2017, 10:21:40 AM


Margaret Thatcher was in government in 1980, preceded by James Callaghan, Harold Wilson (reputedly the Queen's favourite Prime Minister) and before that, Ted Heath. Thatcher and Heath were Conservatives, Wilson was a Labour man but the reverse of a revolutionary, as was James Callaghan. So the BRF certainly weren't worried by 'Left Wing Governments' threatening the existence of the royal family by 1980. The idea that Jim Callaghan or Margaret Thatcher's cabinets  were planning for  a republic is frankly ludicrous.

The Abdication had been over forty years before and never came into contention during Charles's search for a wife. Neither the Queen nor Prince Philip understood Charles nor were they close. They seem to have regarded him as indecisive and wishy washy (hence the Queen's supposed remark to Diana when her daughter in law came to her for help 'Oh Charles! He's hopeless!')

There was never any pushing by Charles parents to persuade him into marriage nor were they proactive in trying to get him married off. The only person who did that was Lord Mountbatten who favoured his granddaughter as a bride. (Charles was quite prepared to marry her too, in spite of there not being any love there either.)

So this myth that's grown up among Charles adherents that he felt he had to marry certainly wasn't because of external pressures. (Charles chose to regard Prince Philip's letter as an ultimatum when it wasn't.)  He himself was the one who became anxious and he was the one who forced himself to propose.


amabel

Have you forgotten the 3 day week?  and the general feelng of decline in the 70s.  THe RF felt they were safe if they did their job respectably, they were nervous that if a scandal got out of hand, or they were seen as lazy, or not reasonably popular with the public, they might at least have their income and influence such as it was curtailed.
I don't believe the Abdication was ever forgotten.. its one reason why the queen wont abdicate, because it is a dirty word to them.
and It was time for Charles to marry.  he was over 30, he was fairly well liked but he was at an age where the public had seen him being in te Navy, then sporty and action man, and starting his work as POW..and the next step was to settle down and provide a Princess and some children.  The newspapers had spent years in the 70s chasing young women who might become his bride.. and if he waited much longer he was going to be a much older husband of a 20 year old.
I can't believe that the queen and Philip were such indifferent parents that they didn't want their son safely married off and being popular providing offspring. They may not have become involved in the search for a bride, but they were IMO certainly hoping he would get settled down fairly soon.  and the "Charles' he's hopeless" remark hardly gibes with the queen being a reasonably affectiotnate mother. 
She clelary didn't like to interfere and then realise eventualy that she HAD to interfere.. but I can't believe that her only remark about the possibility of a scandal was "Oh Charles is hopeless"

Curryong

Yes, I remember those days, and the 'I'm backing Britain' drive and the 3 day week, even though after Heath I was mostly in Australia for several years. However, in my experience, in those days anyway, if times were bad economically people became annoyed with the government and politicians in general, not with the royal family. Few people would have blamed the Queen for economic decline if there were politicians available to have a go at. Even in the 1980s it was a lot more deferential towards the Royal family than it is today and Mrs Thatcher was very deferential.

IMO the real danger for the Royal family came years later with the Blair govt. That contained several open republicans, (as was Cherie Blair,) who were contemptuous of the RF, and several of Blair's aides and advisers were determined to clip the wings of the BRF economically and in other ways as much as possible.

I certainly don't believe the throne was in danger of toppling in the late 1970s and therefore that impacted on Charles being forced into marriage. If the royals  were that terrified they would hardly have had a full State wedding for Charles, which cost a packet, and then a huge semi state one for Andrew a few years later.

There's tons of evidence that Philip regarded his son as weak and indecisive in those years (and before) and said so to him, and in the hearing of others. The Queen seems to have been more or less in agreement, and also criticised his lifestyle for years.

Duch_Luver_4ever

Quote from: royalanthropologist on August 19, 2017, 07:13:07 AM
You would have to be made of stone not to feel a tinge of regret for someone who was once married to you and with whom you produced two children dying in such a violent and unexpected way. That does not mean that the married could have worked. It was a doomed arrangement. No matter how much people may have loved Diana and wanted Charles to love her the same: he didn't. You can't force these things. The heart wants what the heart wants. In the end, they couldn't even live together for appearances' sake. It was a bad relationship whose only source of mutual happiness were the children that resulted from it.

I'm not suggesting that the marriage would have worked @royalanthropologist ,  and of course there are differences of interests, etc., my issue is with the fact that after years of being apart, and with so much indifference, lack of care, and downright attacking her self esteem, at the one time when it was too late, he chooses to have a change of heart?

And what if what he wanted came to pass, was he going to drop everything and play nurse to her, he cant even get his own shirts for gods sake! What was he thinking? Was he going to drop Camilla? Was he going to re-marry her?

No, he was thinking here's a way I can get some of the blame off of me, and look like a decent chap for once regarding Diana.

Quote from: amabel on August 19, 2017, 07:22:30 AM
OH Charles is a big monster who eats babies.....

Idk about babies, but he claims to be descended from Vlad the Impaler, but he IS a monster when it comes to his heart being so stoneclad and inaccessible to Diana, except for a brief moment when it was easy to do and was something that wouldnt happen. It was a day late and a dollar short.....
"No other member of the Royal Family mattered that year, or I think for the next 17 years, it was just her." Arthur Edwards, The Sun Photographer, talking about Diana's impact.

Trudie

Quote from: Curryong on August 19, 2017, 08:45:30 AM
While Diana is regarded by some here as the equivalent of the mad Mrs Rochester and a woman who planned the demise of the House of Windsor.

Double post auto-merged: August 19, 2017, 10:21:40 AM


Margaret Thatcher was in government in 1980, preceded by James Callaghan, Harold Wilson (reputedly the Queen's favourite Prime Minister) and before that, Ted Heath. Thatcher and Heath were Conservatives, Wilson was a Labour man but the reverse of a revolutionary, as was James Callaghan. So the BRF certainly weren't worried by 'Left Wing Governments' threatening the existence of the royal family by 1980. The idea that Jim Callaghan or Margaret Thatcher's cabinets  were planning for  a republic is frankly ludicrous.

The Abdication had been over forty years before and never came into contention during Charles's search for a wife. Neither the Queen nor Prince Philip understood Charles nor were they close. They seem to have regarded him as indecisive and wishy washy (hence the Queen's supposed remark to Diana when her daughter in law came to her for help 'Oh Charles! He's hopeless!')

There was never any pushing by Charles parents to persuade him into marriage nor were they proactive in trying to get him married off. The only person who did that was Lord Mountbatten who favoured his granddaughter as a bride. (Charles was quite prepared to marry her too, in spite of there not being any love there either.)

So this myth that's grown up among Charles adherents that he felt he had to marry certainly wasn't because of external pressures. (Charles chose to regard Prince Philip's letter as an ultimatum when it wasn't.)  He himself was the one who became anxious and he was the one who forced himself to propose.



Well said



dianab

^The Queen herself was quite friendly with 'Maggie' T in her 20/30 years...


Curryong

#15
I always thought that the Queen's favourites among her PMs were more homely, comfy sort of people, like the pipe smoking Harold Wilson, or people she admired, like Churchill. There have been rumours over the years that she didn't particularly like the slickness of Tony Blair (or the barely concealed disdain of Cherie) and that she didn't strike any sort of bond with Mrs Thatcher because (a) Mrs Thatcher was very brisk and all business, especially when visiting Balmoral on what is supposed to be a country break, and (b) she was inclined to self aggrandisement as a person, though correctly respectful of the Queen.

royalanthropologist

Well the letter is there @Curryong. Marry her or dump her. That from a hectoring and bullying father is the equivalent of an intrusive instruction on a son's romantic life, a son who is 32 and has his own household. It was not just DOE but also the media with their constant publications of what a good match she was.

Charles should have said no but he didn't. He is not the first person to say yes when he meant no. He is not the first person to marry someone he did not really love and then later divorcing her. This is not some life changing crisis that people try to make out it was. Diana was quite young at the time of the estrangement. She could have easily found another relationship or even asked for a divorce but she didn't. She wanted Charles to love her and some of her fans hate him for not loving her. But like I said, you can't force these things.

Curiously all the men who admired and said loved Diana did not rescue her. They could have proposed to her and whisked her away from her nightmare. They didn't. Love is not some kind of switch you put on because someone is photogenic and is well-liked by members of the public.

Anthony Holden (who obsessively hates Charles for some reason) once remarked "What kind of a man throws away such a pearl". I then later realized that Holden was divorced...hypocrisy comes to mind. That is the kind of silliness that this debate has sometimes descended to. We instruct and expect people to love those we think they ought to love. Then we hold them to standards that virtually no other human being is held to.

I also rather suspect that the public Diana was very different from the private one. It is pretty much a given that being in closed quarters to her was not a walk in the park (I know someone is going to say that Charles is not easy too but the big difference is that Charles has found someone that suits him and his lifestyle. He has never complained that Diana should have loved him better or that she ruined his life).

The tragedy of Diana is the inability to deal with rejection in a mature way. To her the idea that there was a man who was not interested in her as a woman was just intolerable. She never quite recovered from that. Other people do and have happy second marriages without constantly complaining about the woes of the first or the terrible things their first spouse did to them. Frankly speaking, if a date was constantly telling me about how bad their first wife was; I would not take it any further. It shows me that person has unresolved issues that are likely to affect any future relationships.
"In the past, people were born royal. Nowadays, royalty comes from what you do"...Gianni Versace

amabel

It was not easy for Diana to "ask for a divorce" as you know.  the queen took a very long time before she oked it..a nd once int eh marriage, ti was not possible for either Charles or Diana to get out of it, without a lot of trouble and trauma.  That's why they should both have tired to make sure they were sure that they had a good start for marriage and that they could make it work.  But they didn't. Neither of them really I think took enough care bout making sure.  But having made the mistake, and having tried to adjust to each other and failing, I think that charles was willing to keep the marriage going, and see Camilla in private.  He thought that with J Hewitt to keep her company, Diana would accept that the marriage had to last, though I think that he too wanted out of it..
I think that Diana did have trouble with relationships.. She was fragile emotionally and IMO after a bad marriage she needed a  lot of care and therapy to get her to a stage wehre maybe she could find a man and settle down into a good second marriage or find fulfilment in a life without getting married.  But by then she had spent all her adult life in an unnatural environment, she was scarred and though she did look for help, I don't think she was looking, mostly in the right places.  She probably should have taken a year off from her life, and had some in depth therapy.. and left the public arena.. Instead of pushing herselfto go on with her work and trying to "have a normal life" when she was stressed out and scarred.
but I think she was at times wilful and didn't want to see a therapist who might challenge her, and went to see various therapists who were not qualified and weren't really much help

royalanthropologist

I actually do understand how the silly rules on divorce trapped two people who could no longer live in the same house together.

My point was rather about healing and moving on from a bad relationship. Diana never got to that stage. It was always an attempt to upstage Charles or to explain how much she suffered in the marriage. Right up to the last few days of her life, she was still haunted by her failed marriage.

The transcripts for the inquest really do bring out a lot of stuff that was not known about her emotional state. She had been devastated by Camilla's 50th birthday and told her therapist that the diamond necklace that Charles had given to Camilla was like a dagger in her heart. She then wrote a letter about what Charles had put her through and how she thought he was planning  to kill her to marry Tiggy. When in Bosnia she told someone who had a family member involved in an accident that her own accident happened in 1981. Diana never ever got over the relationship with Charles. She had not healed and continued to have an unhealthy interest in his love life.

Pierce Morgan (a Mirror Journalist) describes how Diana deliberately invited the press to her holiday with Dodi in order to upstage Camilla. A person who has healed does not do that. They enjoy their holiday or whatever pastime they are having. Diana's life was punctuated by a series of media scoops designed to upstage her husband, long after he had lost all interest in her. It was a very sad way to live after separation and divorce.
"In the past, people were born royal. Nowadays, royalty comes from what you do"...Gianni Versace

sandy

I disagree. Diana was moving on. She was interested in carving out a new role for herself. She did not just sit home depressed. She was quite visible. The letter about Charles was earlier than 1997 and not at the time of the party. Diana was vacationing at the time of the party. She seemed quite chipper in the photos with her sons. Tiggy was really out of the picture in 1997 and there was a documentary about Camilla that Summer and Charles was commencing the PR campaign for Camilla. From all that was written, what bothered Diana was the split with Hasnet Khan. I doubt she could have cared less about Charles. She even was thinking about a possible marriage to Hasnet before then. This is all on record. Charles was not worth the effort for her by then.

Diana was not with Dodi during the Camilla party. So it was only her photo not hers and Dodi's. The photos with Dodi came later.

I think Diana lost interest in her ex husband. I think she fell genuinely in love with Hasnet. Diana had moved on.Diana was reportedly cordial with Charles when they met up that year involving an event for Prince William. There are pictures to show it.

I don't recall any such quote about the "dagger in her heart" over the necklace.  Her therapist never disclosed any such quote nor would he.

Diana was done with Charles by then.

royalanthropologist

The transcripts of the court hearings say so. Diana's friends say so. The journalists she consorted with say so. Even her own words say so. Somehow I believe that it can't be that so many different people say the same thing. Diana never got over the divorce. She was always bitter and acting in irrational ways because of it.
"In the past, people were born royal. Nowadays, royalty comes from what you do"...Gianni Versace

sandy

Quote from: amabel on August 20, 2017, 07:47:55 AM
It was not easy for Diana to "ask for a divorce" as you know.  the queen took a very long time before she oked it..a nd once int eh marriage, ti was not possible for either Charles or Diana to get out of it, without a lot of trouble and trauma.  That's why they should both have tired to make sure they were sure that they had a good start for marriage and that they could make it work.  But they didn't. Neither of them really I think took enough care bout making sure.  But having made the mistake, and having tried to adjust to each other and failing, I think that charles was willing to keep the marriage going, and see Camilla in private.  He thought that with J Hewitt to keep her company, Diana would accept that the marriage had to last, though I think that he too wanted out of it..
I think that Diana did have trouble with relationships.. She was fragile emotionally and IMO after a bad marriage she needed a  lot of care and therapy to get her to a stage wehre maybe she could find a man and settle down into a good second marriage or find fulfilment in a life without getting married.  But by then she had spent all her adult life in an unnatural environment, she was scarred and though she did look for help, I don't think she was looking, mostly in the right places.  She probably should have taken a year off from her life, and had some in depth therapy.. and left the public arena.. Instead of pushing herselfto go on with her work and trying to "have a normal life" when she was stressed out and scarred.
but I think she was at times wilful and didn't want to see a therapist who might challenge her, and went to see various therapists who were not qualified and weren't really much help

They had the separation in 1992. I do think the Queen was hoping they could just lead separate lives and not divorce.

Diana could not really have a "relationship" that would go anywhere while she was married to Prince Charles. She saw what happened to her mother when she 'bolted' and lost custody of her children. Diana was only divorced for one year before she died so I don't think judgments about her "ability" to have relationships can be judged. She died at 36 not at 96.

I doubt Diana would have rushed into a second marriage. She also was carving out a new role for herself re: charities and causes.

It goes further back then the early years of the marriage. Charles wanted to marry Diana hoping to "learn to love her." That is not the way to go into any marriage, in that half hearted way. He should have broken things off and not married her under those conditions. I think HE was the one who had trouble with relationships. What sort of person goes into a marriage that way, just for expediency's sake to have heirs. I found it ridiculous that Smith compares C and D to Elizabeth and Bertie. Elizabeth wanted to be sure and Bertie loved her so they married already in love. There was no doubt nor did either say they "hoped" to fall in love with their partners.


Double post auto-merged: August 20, 2017, 07:45:18 PM


Quote from: royalanthropologist on August 20, 2017, 07:39:23 PM
The transcripts of the court hearings say so. Diana's friends say so. The journalists she consorted with say so. Even her own words say so. Somehow I believe that it can't be that so many different people say the same thing. Diana never got over the divorce. She was always bitter and acting in irrational ways because of it.

It was hearsay. Diana never publicly said anything about that party. But she had a lot to say about Camilla before then. So it is clear that she was not thrilled with it, but she still moved on with her life. She was no Miss Havisham pining for Charles wearing the tattered wedding gown.

She was still young and vital and moving on.

Of course she got over the divorce. She was divorced for a year and during that time had a serious relationship with Dr. Khan. They loved each other. She certainly did not display the "symptoms" of pining for Charles.

Just about all sources say she was trying to reach Hasnet not Charles, with the photos with Dodi.  She was by herself not with Dodi during the party Charles threw for Camilla.

royalanthropologist

Charles has absolutely no problem with his second marriage. He is a man transformed. I do not buy the idea that because his relationship with Diana failed, he could not have a normal marriage with someone. He has been with Camilla practically since 1984. Not a quip about breakups, tantrums or exposes.

We also learn that this was "an arranged marriage" courtesy of Diana herself speaking to Michael George. Not everybody marries for love. People marry for many, many reasons including dynastic ones particularly if they are royal. The whole fantasy of a fairy tale was the public deceiving itself. Even Diana knew from the one go that this was not about "everlasting love".
"In the past, people were born royal. Nowadays, royalty comes from what you do"...Gianni Versace

sandy




Quote from: royalanthropologist on August 20, 2017, 05:13:35 AM
Well the letter is there @Curryong. Marry her or dump her. That from a hectoring and bullying father is the equivalent of an intrusive instruction on a son's romantic life, a son who is 32 and has his own household. It was not just DOE but also the media with their constant publications of what a good match she was.

Charles should have said no but he didn't. He is not the first person to say yes when he meant no. He is not the first person to marry someone he did not really love and then later divorcing her. This is not some life changing crisis that people try to make out it was. Diana was quite young at the time of the estrangement. She could have easily found another relationship or even asked for a divorce but she didn't. She wanted Charles to love her and some of her fans hate him for not loving her. But like I said, you can't force these things.

Curiously all the men who admired and said loved Diana did not rescue her. They could have proposed to her and whisked her away from her nightmare. They didn't. Love is not some kind of switch you put on because someone is photogenic and is well-liked by members of the public.

Anthony Holden (who obsessively hates Charles for some reason) once remarked "What kind of a man throws away such a pearl". I then later realized that Holden was divorced...hypocrisy comes to mind. That is the kind of silliness that this debate has sometimes descended to. We instruct and expect people to love those we think they ought to love. Then we hold them to standards that virtually no other human being is held to.

I also rather suspect that the public Diana was very different from the private one. It is pretty much a given that being in closed quarters to her was not a walk in the park (I know someone is going to say that Charles is not easy too but the big difference is that Charles has found someone that suits him and his lifestyle. He has never complained that Diana should have loved him better or that she ruined his life).

The tragedy of Diana is the inability to deal with rejection in a mature way. To her the idea that there was a man who was not interested in her as a woman was just intolerable. She never quite recovered from that. Other people do and have happy second marriages without constantly complaining about the woes of the first or the terrible things their first spouse did to them. Frankly speaking, if a date was constantly telling me about how bad their first wife was; I would not take it any further. It shows me that person has unresolved issues that are likely to affect any future relationships.

Charles did not have to listen to his father. He was 32. He needed heirs and he had been turned down by at least two other prospects. Camilla encouraged the match by hosting Charles and Diana at the home she shared with APB and their children. One option his father had was to drop Diana if he could not commit. That does not sound like forcing to me.

The thing is Charles had no business marrying Diana if he did not love her. IF he wanted a marriage, he should have stopped contacting Camilla. Charles could not have it both ways. Why is Diana singled out as being the "problem." Charles could not accept that Camilla married someone else and resumed the relationship with her when she married another man and the youngest was still practically a baby. A mature man Moves On. and I mean Moves On.

Divorce was not an easy thing for Charles and/or Diana to get back then. Which is why I am wondering why Charles went into the marriage not loving Diana.

royalanthropologist

"Just about all sources say she was trying to reach Hasnet not Charles, with the photos with Dodi.  She was by herself not with Dodi during the party Charles threw for Camilla."

No that is not true. The sources actually say she wanted to send a message to C&C. Richard Kay who is acknowledged as Diana's mouthpiece actually said the same thing. Pierce Morgan said as much. At inquest, that too was raised. Someone advised her not to watch a documentary about C&C to commemorate Camilla's 50th birthday but she could not resist.  Diana was not over the divorce. She remained bitter and acted out because of it.
"In the past, people were born royal. Nowadays, royalty comes from what you do"...Gianni Versace